So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?

Regarding the path, check Ratnavali, Suhrllekha, Yuktisastika, and Sunyatasaptati. Also look at Aryadeva's Catuhsataka. Madhyamaka in the early times differed from the Abhidharma approach in that it took a different view to vipasyana. Later Madhyamaka is another matter.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

In other words, what is the tiantai/madhamaka View on this subject?

There is a Madhyamika meditation in Tibetan Buddhism. Basically, the practitioners follow the reasoning set out in Nagarjuna's root text until they are sure that they understood it conceptually. Next, they have to "integrate it" with the mind. After that, the practitioners are suppose to integrate the meditative experience in everyday lives. The method to practice is explained clearly in Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso's books on Madhyamika.

The full extent of Tiantai practices has almost or completely died out today. the method to practice is explained and developed in detailed by Master Zhi Yi, the founding master of the tiantai school. I am not an expert of this school but there are threads that discussed about this school in this forum. However, I do know that one of their main practice is a confession practice based on Contemplation sutra of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra developed by Master Zhi Yi. The sutra that tiantai focused on is the lotus sutra. Master Zhi Yi was known to have attained a special accomplishment mentioned in Lotus Sutra called the Swirling Dharani.

So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

In other words, what is the tiantai/madhamaka View on this subject?

the madhyamika view is said when mixed with love and compassion is enlightenment, as told to me by a Rinpoche.

In regards to the lotus sutra
It's all so confusing and maybe sordid at the same time. I practiced Nichiren on and off for years..most of my adult life actually...more off than on..but when on...FULL ON...when off...like now...still wondering....

so shoot me if i am confused...

How can their be a true enlightenment from a sutra if we now know the sutra is just some guy's fantasy.

now that fantasy might cause great thought and such...but it's still just a fairy tale of sci fi variety...

The Lotus sutra was as the story goes,held in secret by little mermaid people called nagas...Lord Nagarjuna went to the bottom of the ocean to retrieve it..

modern day archeology dictates there is no possibility of historic Lord Sakayamuni composing this piece...

the Sutra is what sci fi writings are made of...
enlightenment from such a thing...is akin to enlightenment from the movie the matrix...

So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

In other words, what is the tiantai/madhamaka View on this subject?

You're doing it wrong.

Nagarjuna's Madhyamika is not a proof to be evaluated from the outside looking in. Its a subjective view. You have to embody Nagarjuna's mind, which is the Buddha's mind.

Tientai taught similar - you have to embody the Buddha's mind. This is Nichiren's teaching also.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

In other words, what is the tiantai/madhamaka View on this subject?

He offered lots, just not in the mulamadhyamakarikas. Check out the commentary on the perfection of wisdom, which is an enormous work covering pretty much all things Mahayana from a madhyamika perspective, including the path of practice.

I also really like the writings of sanlun authors like zengchao and jizang, who do a good job of conveying the more practical aspects of madhyamika and what it actually means to let go of views and extremes.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"
--- Gandavyuha Sutra

So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

In other words, what is the tiantai/madhamaka View on this subject?

He offered lots, just not in the mulamadhyamakarikas. Check out the commentary on the perfection of wisdom, which is an enormous work covering pretty much all things Mahayana from a madhyamika perspective, including the path of practice.

I also really like the writings of sanlun authors like zengchao and jizang, who do a good job of conveying the more practical aspects of madhyamika and what it actually means to let go of views and extremes.

a philosophical view arrives..

we are not islands unto ourselves and everything is in this together...
i guess thats why karma works when applied to higher beings that do not live by instinct alone.

My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about

This is the crux of misunderstanding Sunyata.
there is no positive or negative aspects to the view...

just an absence of anything being inherent due to the nature of reality being all is CO- arising...and interdepedant..

Co as in cooperative... everything needs so many things to exist....and due to that fact nothing exists on it's own so there is a non existence aspect to everything....if something cannot inherently exist then everything is borderline non existent from a VIEW point.

once you understand the nature of everything and mix it with love and compassion instead of nihilism...you are enlightened to the nature of what we dwell in and interact in....and what we are....

so there are a plethora of teachings and teachers that help one to achieve this.... Tibetans seem to have the best modern day handle on bringing you to this VIEW....it takes time...baby steps...and more steps...and time....

i was told it's really bad karma to discuss this if you really do not understand ......and to be carefull.....

So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

So I've been reading about nagarjuna and emptiness and see that he is always trying to negate the systems of his contemporaries whilst offering no system of his own.
My question is: did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?
If nagarjuna didn't then what about tiantai? Did tiantai or his school offer any practical methods or explanations?

In other words, what is the tiantai/madhamaka View on this subject?

Separate topic, perhaps:

what is in TienTai that is not in Nagarjuna?

Nominally:
The Third Truth.

Actually: Zhiyi may have pulled some punches on Nagarjuna - at least the Madhyamika Nagarjuna. Zhiyi was on board with Ta Chi Tu Lun Nagarjuna.

This may be two different Nagarjunas.

Ng explores this in Early Madhyamika and Tientai.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

A broader range of practices and somewhat broader range of texts being relied upon. Zhi Yi held up the lotus and avatamsaka sutras as the perfected teachings, Nagarjuna more or less explained away the lotus sutra in the bodhisambara.

Roughly speaking, it can be said that Zhi Yi attempted a comprehensive Chinese hermeneutic based on Ekayana that could explain the vast and divergent corpus of Mahayana texts they now had access to, in a manner that was still congruent and faithful to Nagarjuna. The degree to which is succeeded is perhaps up for debate, but I believe this was Zhi Yi's self-understanding of the project.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"
--- Gandavyuha Sutra

The abhidharma approach is to break down conventional phenomena to ultimate constituents, i.e. dharmas, so there is no person, there are only the five aggregates, and those five are impermanent, etc. The madhyamaka approach is to break phenomena down to nothing. In the end the goal in both cases is to eliminate grasping at experiences.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

A broader range of practices and somewhat broader range of texts being relied upon. Zhi Yi held up the lotus and avatamsaka sutras as the perfected teachings, Nagarjuna more or less explained away the lotus sutra in the bodhisambara.

Roughly speaking, it can be said that Zhi Yi attempted a comprehensive Chinese hermeneutic based on Ekayana that could explain the vast and divergent corpus of Mahayana texts they now had access to, in a manner that was still congruent and faithful to Nagarjuna. The degree to which is succeeded is perhaps up for debate, but I believe this was Zhi Yi's self-understanding of the project.

I agree with all of these.

I'd also assert that the most innovative positions Zhiyi takes are the least convincing ones, starting with the Five Periods.

I'm not sure Zhiyi meant the various categories he identified to be compelling. I think he was self consciously practicing upaya.

"All of these are instances of discussing the dhyanas according to numerical categories. Although the numerical categories may be either greater or lesser in number, when one exhaust all of the characteristic aspects of these dharmas, not a one of them fails to be mutually subsumed by the others. Its because of differences in the teaching opportunities presented by different beings and the differences in their levels of awakening that there is this increase and decrease in numerical discriminations set forth for their benefit."

-Six Sublime Dharma Gates

He reiterates this idea throughout his works. Its the upaya as presented in the Lotus.

The five periods is a way to organize Buddhist teachings. (He actually emphasized the five flavors, drawn from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra - the five period formulation was emphasized later). So are the four teachings and four methods. If people get stuck on these categories and don't glean their import, Zhiyi is just going to seem like an obtuse thinker. It is presented early on in certain summary teachings of Zhiyi and its so unique that people tend to focus on it, especially if that's all they are exposed to. I find its a useful short hand to refer to certain modes of teachings and ideas. That's how Zhiyi seems to use these references outside of explicit discussions of the categories themselves.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

The abhidharma approach is to break down conventional phenomena to ultimate constituents, i.e. dharmas, so there is no person, there are only the five aggregates, and those five are impermanent, etc. The madhyamaka approach is to break phenomena down to nothing. In the end the goal in both cases is to eliminate grasping at experiences.

Thanks Astus. My question wasn't clear sorry. I was in fact asking about the distinction that you draw between early & late Madhyamaka as regard to Vipasyana & Abhidharma.
If you don't mind...

the distinction that you draw between early & late Madhyamaka as regard to Vipasyana & Abhidharma.

With the further development of Mahayana through the emergence of Yogacara things got more detailed regarding the bodhisattva path and practices, as you can see in the works of Candrakirti, Haribhadra, Santaraksita, Kamalasila, Santideva, Atisa, etc.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

A broader range of practices and somewhat broader range of texts being relied upon. Zhi Yi held up the lotus and avatamsaka sutras as the perfected teachings, Nagarjuna more or less explained away the lotus sutra in the bodhisambara.

Roughly speaking, it can be said that Zhi Yi attempted a comprehensive Chinese hermeneutic based on Ekayana that could explain the vast and divergent corpus of Mahayana texts they now had access to, in a manner that was still congruent and faithful to Nagarjuna. The degree to which is succeeded is perhaps up for debate, but I believe this was Zhi Yi's self-understanding of the project.

I agree with all of these.

I'd also assert that the most innovative positions Zhiyi takes are the least convincing ones, starting with the Five Periods.

I'd like to elaborate on this point a bit.

I don't mind the five-fold categorization of Dharma teachings that Zhiyi put together as the Five Periods. If you understand the Five Periods metaphorically and not temporally, then I probably agree with you except on one other point: I think it was a consequential error on Zhiyi's part to identify each of the five periods with a particular text or texts, because for a literal-minded thinker, it precludes the possibility that the "perfect" teaching may be found outside of this or that book.

You see this in some discussions in and around Japanese Buddhism and it introduces problems. If Kegon is an Avatamsaka school, and Tendai is a Lotus Sutra school, then... what book does Nyingma or Gelug uphold? Neither of those schools are limited to particular books, but they do prefer certain doctrines (which may or may not align with what Zhiyi taught as the "perfect"). This is one way Zhiyi's intellectual edifice leaves some problems in its wake.

With all that said, if you need a belief structure, a narrative to believe in, then it's perfectly serviceable. If you think belief is useless, then the Five Periods model will also be useless to you. I fall into the latter category. YMMV.